Filed: Jun. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2763 In Re: SALVAGE DELACY STITH, Debtor. _ SALVAGE DELACY STITH, Debtor - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Creditor - Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE; FRANK J. SANTORO, Parties in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-786, BK-96-20183) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before NIEME
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2763 In Re: SALVAGE DELACY STITH, Debtor. _ SALVAGE DELACY STITH, Debtor - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Creditor - Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE; FRANK J. SANTORO, Parties in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-786, BK-96-20183) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before NIEMEY..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2763
In Re: SALVAGE DELACY STITH,
Debtor.
_________________________
SALVAGE DELACY STITH,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Creditor - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE; FRANK J. SANTORO,
Parties in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District
Judge. (CA-97-786, BK-96-20183)
Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Salvage Delacy Stith, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Dexter Gray, Charles
Foster Marshall, III, Beverly Moses Katz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Gregory David Stefan, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s dismissal without prejudice of Appellant’s Chap-
ter 13 plan for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) (1994). We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. In re: Stith, Nos. CA-97-786; BK-96-20183 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 11, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2